Dear David Singer,

Okay I have now stopped laughing.

I have just been viewing via the BBC the slaughter of unarmed Syrians at the border with Israel. When the IDF finally decided to use more conventional means of dealing with protestors ie teargas, the situation was quickly managed. Up till that point they had been using live ammunition and the toll of dead and wounded is horrendous, unacceptable, and utterly shameful.

You stated in your article; "Obama’s position will be viewed by Israel and its supporters’ as a shift that does no honor to America and badly damages its reputation and integrity."

I say Israel's actions on this day will be viewed by the rest of the world including many Americans as doing no honor to Israel and badly damaging what is left of its reputation and integrity.

I am sickened.

I do not wish to play anymore at this time.

David and camo,

I would recommend that you ignore the usual suspects who rush to OLO whenever they see David's contribution. They have not stated to which benighted group they belong ... Unfortunately, pro-Palestinian groups, purportedly supporting the Palestinians, do great damage to their cause - not only be fabricating facts (easily identified) - but also tossing in "events", which actually throw into stark light Arab attrocities. The above usual contributors are either ill-informed, or deliberately malicious. Patently clear, they do not want to see peace between Israel and Palestinians. They do not wish to see a viable and healthy Palestinian state alongside Israel, but ongoing conflict and bloodshed. The question begs 'Why'?

As for csteele ...? I may be wrong, but I have a strong impression that csteele has no real interest in either Israel or the Palestinian cause. 'Indifferent' perhaps would be the word.
However, csteele likes the battle of crossing swords with David. One can almost hear the snort of the warhorse.

UN General Assembly Resolution 194, 11 Decmber 1948, addressed numerous issues, the aim of which was to facilitate truce in the region. Resolution 194 established a
conciliation commission, representatives being from the US, France and Turkey replacing the UN mediator.

The brief of the commission was the achievement of “a final settlement of all questions ... between governments and authorities concerned.”

Of the fifteen paragraphs, paragraph 11, the “refugee clause,” alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for property. This clause was neither a stand-along clause nor was it specific to Palestinian Arabs.

Over 800,000 Jews had been expelled under pain of death from Arab States, their properties, including all assets, residences, schools, hospitals etc. had been appropriated by Arab governmemts. These Jewish refugees were left with the clothes on their back.

The Resolution was directed at both Jewish and Arab refugees. How could it not be?

Importantly, Resolution 194 did not guarantee unconditional Right of Return.

Arab states - Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen voted against Resolution 194.

cont ...

UN Resolution 181: “Right of Return” to Israel does not exist. Anyone living outside the borders of Israel recognised by the Palestinian leadership - (recognised by Arrafat in 1993) - have no right of return.

International Law does not recognise Right of Return. There is no precedent, nor legal standing.

Right of Return is neither recognised nor implemented on the political level anywhere in the world.

Right of Return does not exist.

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against a Greek demand for a "right to return" to the Turkish part of Cyprus. The Court ruled that there is no such absolute right. (Demopoulos v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France, Mar. 1, 2010.)

Inspite of voting against Resolution 194, (thus devoid of inherent logic) Arabs call for Right of Return; a euphenism for Israel's destruction. In an internal meeting, March 2009, Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged that the repatriation of even one million Palestinian refugees "would mean the end of Israel." ( The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 24, 2011; see, also, Saeb Erekat, "The Returning Issue of Palestine's Refugees," The Guardian (London), Dec. 10, 2010.)

Resolution of the Israeli-Palestian conflict would be Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the sincere hand of peace proferred to Israel, and the two state solution. Why is it so hard?

#csteele

Goodbye.

Sorry you still did not answer my frequently asked question to you:

"By the way - how many times did I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my published articles on OLO over the past twelve months? "

Maybe now you can give us the answer with a little more spare time on your hands.

#Danielle

You ask:

"Resolution of the Israeli-Palestian conflict would be Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the sincere hand of peace proferred to Israel, and the two state solution. Why is it so hard?"

My response:

Because the Arabs have never wanted and will never accept a two state solution.

This solution was available to them to accept in
1. 1937
2. 1947
3. At anytime between 1948-1967 when the West Bank,Gaza and East Jerusalem was under total Arab occupation and control
4. In 2001
5. In 2008

The only solution they will accept is one in which Israel no longer exists as the national homeland of the Jewish people. They have made that abundantly clear as each of the opportunities given them above have been rejected.

Why the world continues to persist with the belief that the Palestinian Arabs - in the face of such intransigence and rejectionism - should be given a second Jew-free state in former Palestine (in addition to Jordan) - is a mystery.

Can you imagine the outrage and indignation that would occur if the Jews demanded a second Jewish state in the West Bank in addition to Israel?

How many bites of the cherry do you allow the Palestinian Arabs?

I am sure there are other groups like the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques and the Tamils that would welcome the international community pursuing national rights for them with the same intensity as they do for the Palestinian Arabs.

Continuing to do so for the Palestinian Arabs is regrettably a waste of time.

David,

When the British spoke of Palestinians they referred to Jews of the territory, not Arabs.

Arrafat himself declared that there was no such person as a Palestinian Arab; they were all Syrians.